The player was hardly involved in the game, whether he was isolated because of the lack of creativity and vision from midfield or his inability to drop deep and attempt to play others into forward positions to support him, the fact remains...he was hardly involved. We know his limitations. He's ability is to score out of nothing. In desperate times, retaining a player like that on the pitch is not a tactical decision - it's always going to be one of chance. Keep him on, something might just happen. Didn't happen in the minutes that came before his substitution, but it might have happened after had he stayed on, we'll never know.

Keeping him on might have allowed us to switch to two up front. A formation that I honestly thought was placed aside by many of us last season as one that is dysfunctional against more organised sides. Playing two up front would again have been a chance. Something different. Force the issue because there was no other edge to our game. We could have seen an opportunity created simply by doubling our numbers in the furthest position. Two players, one supporting the other. Which is what we probably had before the sub was made and wasn't working and had it after the sub was made and still didn't work. Dempsey, Defoe...very little difference to be fair between the two.

Fact is, sub or no sub, it's not Andre Villas-Boas wearing studs running around the pitch. Our players let themselves and us down as much as our tactics from the dug out. Defoe can walk down the tunnel if he wants. Don't read too much into it. Could be petulance, could have easily been pride and frustration. Fact is we can all react in the heat of the moment but if you take a seconds pause, it doesn't really matter who came off and who came on. The game was lost long before that moment.